politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Alternative to CBS.
CNN Is Set for Trump-Friendly New Owners: How Jake Tapper & Tony Dokoupil Reacted
Found this person's comment interesting:
I know Oliver has made comments himself about this. I wonder how he's going to handle it.
I'd be curious if someone has a curated list of media outlets and websites that started out alright, or at least relatively innocuous, even if they were overly corporate and center-right (like CBS), and then took a hard right turn...
CBS -> fell into Donvict-friendly hands WashPo -> owned by Bozos Twitter -> fell into fElon's hands, now known as Xitter RealClearPolitics -> was apparently sold to batshit-insane right winger(s).
And so on. I'm not sure of something going the other direction, although some might say that Steve Jobs' wife is on the left and bought the Atlantic, but....I've not really noticed an improvement in Atlantic's output.
I do have to laugh when someone points at pages like this to "prove" that there really is a "liberal media". I guess if you basically have nothing actually on the left but the most fringe of things running on a shoestring budget and no audience (like counterpunch for example) and then rank everything that's remaining - basically all of the spectrum from the center to the extremist radically right wing, the stuff in the center becomes "very left", lol:
https://www.biasly.com/media-bias-chart/us-main/
It frustrates me whenever a YouTube channel takes a sponsorship from Ground News, because they treat ideological bias as something that's evenly balanced and equally problematic from both sides, when in reality the overton window of what counts as left-wing keeps getting dragged further and further to the right with the resurgence of fascism around the world.
I don't know much about Ground News though I have seen the adverts on channels. I had a co-worker ask if I used it and I tried to not react in a rather hot-take as the idea rather annoys me - that the problem is somehow "too much radicalism on both sides", whatever.
I still have to laugh about the ratings sites like mediabiasfactcheck.com (remember when things here were getting that robot to rate them via this?) and "allsides.com" (haha! allsides! They should have just called it bothsides, FFS).
I remember someone saying they would not even read an article I linked at Wonkette. I asked what specific facts they took issue with - of course, they would not even read the link in question, but came back with this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wonkette/
Oh, right, so again, some random site uses a methodology to scoop up what is largely a spectrum of moderate left (at most) to the extremist ridiculously cartoonish right wing and then put them on a scale. Because there is almost nothing on the far left of any consequence, really, it becomes almost hilariously skewed. Milquetoast "centrist" corporate dreck is classified as liberal, haha.
Anyway, sure, Wonkette has an opinion and they use humor, but they are often a great place to start and they provide references. They even issue corrections and apologies, IIRC.